Nikon 16-85 or Nikon 35 1.8 G

[psran]

I am getting an excellent deal for a Nikon 16-85 VR II lens, it's costing me about the same price I can sell my Nikon 35 mm prime for. Since I would be using Flash lot more from now on, do I really need large aperture advantage.

I have read excellent reviews for 16-85

I am already a victim of LENS LUST

 

[Derrel]

A zoom lens has more focal length flexibility than a single focal length lens. The 35/1.8 DX is a low-cost $199 prime lens. It's small,light, and of course,only has the one length. For flash work, wide f/stop of f/1.8 is not super-necessary, but it does allow you to see and focus well in dimmer lighting conditions, where the zoom lens will be a bit dimmer through the viewfinder, due to its slower (AKA 'smaller') aperture.

Personally, if you do not have a lot of lenses already, I think zooms make more sense. Just more-useful.

WHat a prime does is allows you to really learn, to get a really good "feel for" the exact distance and position you need to be to make X and Y types of photos. It in a way, forces you to shoot from a certain distance in order to get say, a full-body shot, or a head and shoulders shot...on the one hand, that leads to the ability to learn to see, to visualize, the framing a 35mm lens will give from a whole range of distances. Sometimes that's okay, but at other times, it's restrictive, or limiting, to be stuck at one single focal length.

 

[psran]

A zoom lens has more focal length flexibility than a single focal length lens. The 35/1.8 DX is a low-cost $199 prime lens. It's small,light, and of course,only has the one length. For flash work, wide f/stop of f/1.8 is not super-necessary, but it does allow you to see and focus well in dimmer lighting conditions, where the zoom lens will be a bit dimmer through the viewfinder, due to its slower (AKA 'smaller') aperture.

Personally, if you do not have a lot of lenses already, I think zooms make more sense. Just more-useful.

WHat a prime does is allows you to really learn, to get a really good "feel for" the exact distance and position you need to be to make X and Y types of photos. It in a way, forces you to shoot from a certain distance in order to get say, a full-body shot, or a head and shoulders shot...on the one hand, that leads to the ability to learn to see, to visualize, the framing a 35mm lens will give from a whole range of distances. Sometimes that's okay, but at other times, it's restrictive, or limiting, to be stuck at one single focal length.

I am having a 18-55 kit lens which I dont like very much and a Tamron 70-300 which is not very sharp. I had bought 35 mm prime as I was trying to shooot without flash but now having got an external flash I don't see reason for holding 35 prime which is very restrictive in tight spots.

16-85 I suppose has much better optics and the deal I am getting is too good so am inclining towards it.

Do you think its much better than 35 prime ??

 

[orb9220]

More Apple Oranges kind of thing. Prime is better low light and shallow depth of field.
But zoom more convenient when foot zooming isn't possible.

For me the Zoom would be more usable in more situations.
Tho don't know why needing to get rid of the 35mm? As does come in handy.

Just about ever lens I sold because I thought I wouldn't need it. Ended up causing regrets later down the path.
Nothing saying you can't own more than one lens after all.
.

 

[SeanE]

If I were in your shoes, I would get the 16-85.

 

[greybeard]

I have both the 16-85 and the 35, I use them equally. If I had to give one of them up though, it would be the 35.

 

[psran]

Thanks for suggestions everyone. But the sad news is that the 16-85 lens I was hoping to buy has a problem with VR so that cannot be used while shooting and that is the reason why I think I was getting it at 1/3rd of price

I think I will have to stay with 35 Prime